Baker Academic

Sunday, August 30, 2015

David B. Capes, recently appointed academic dean at Houston Graduate School of Theology (congrats!), reviews my The Wife of Jesus over at A Word in Edgewise. I am grateful to David for emphasizing my discussion of civic masculinity in Jesus' world. To my mind, civic masculinity is--or should be--the most important factor in any discussion of Jesus' sexuality. Here is his summary of this discussion:

Le Donne offers a helpful construct for what was typical of Jewish males in the first century. The term he uses is “civic masculinity”; it represents the gender role most Jewish men would play in their day. It would include things like marriage and having children, working a trade and taking responsibility for one’s economic well-being, passing the faith along, seeking to own and work the land, etc. Jesus, according to Le Donne, may have been raised to accept this role, but he may have subverted it in his public ministry. Jesus , he says, “invested in the two-sided coin of economic disobligation and celibacy.” Such a lifestyle was probably considered “crazy” by ancient standards and “anti-family” by modern.

I would only add that the patriarch of the clan in many cases controlled an extended group of relatives, oversaw important decisions (e.g. arranged marriages), and was the face of the group in public with the hope to bring honor to/via ancestral connections and project well-being forward for future generations (various eschatological frameworks incorporated). In short, this "alpha male" was measured by his ability to control and care for the clan. Of course this ideal was manifested in various ways and in varying degrees. Marriage in Jesus' world fit within this matrix and eroticism ("romance" wasn't invented yet) was rarely an important factor.

My conclusion is that modern projections of romantic relationships onto common folk in pre-medieval, agrarian societies are anachronistic. To speak of marriage in Jesus context--including "biblical ideals" of marriage--requires us to acknowledge that our ideals, institutions, and practices are almost entirely dissimilar to those in Jesus' world.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Last week, I wrote a short blog post inspired by this fine article by Brent Landau. I took issue with a minor detail concerning "eyewitnesses." I felt that this detail - while minor - betrayed a larger problem within historical Jesus research. Focused and emboldened by this most serious matter, I wielded all of my best Michael W. Smith and whoopee cushion anecdotes to provide an example of what Landau called "quite minor events" decades removed from eyewitness experience. As is often the case when you write about pseudo-flatulence, a senior scholar whom you've admired for years emerges to defend his work.

Below I've copied and pasted the portions of the comments thread wherein Bauckham responds. There were many other interesting comments on this thread. Here I only reproduce those that find Bauckham in direct conversation. I've also tinkered with the chronology a bit to clarify who is responding to whom.

Richard Bauckham:

What is routinely ignored in discussion of my Eyewitnesses
book, is that in the chapter on the psychology of eyewitness memory I explained
that eyewitness memory can be very unreliable, but for that reason I drew from
a an extensive study of the psychological research literature conclusions about
what sort of things are most likely to be remembered well and under what
conditions eyewitness memory is likely to be reliable. Therefore my arguments
are not refuted simply by general claims that eyewitness memory is often
unreliable. It is one of many points at which my critics simply have not read
my work adequately.

Nor did I claim that direct eyewitness testimony is necessarily more reliable
than eyewitness testimony at secondhand or thirdhand (which is what your
examples amount to). My claim is that the way the eyewitnesses told the stories
lies not far behind the text of the Gospels as we have them. With the exception
of parts (not all) of John's Gospel (in my view), we have in the Gospels
eyewitness testimony at second or thirdhand. My general argument was directed
to showing that access to eyewitness testimony mattered in the early church and
that, in a variety of ways, the Gospels do claim such access. This is quite
contrary to the form critical view. People say, But that doesn't get us very
far because the eyewitness testimony need not be reliable, are failing to
recognise that it gets us a lot further than the form critical paradigm allows.
It makes it worthwhile taking the Gospels to be potentially good historical
sources and to start assessing that by appropriate means - means different from
the failed criteria of authenticity that were the best that could be done if
the form critical paradigm of the transmission of Gospel traditions were right.
Historical method is generally about evaluating sources as generally reliable
and then trusting them - or not. Even the most reliable sources will be
unreliable in parts but (unless we have really ample multiple sources) we often
just have to take that risk. It's what history is always like - more or less
probable, never 100% certain. And that's all without taking the subjectivity of
eyewitness testimony in to account, as I do in the last chapter. It still
remains the case that one condition for the reliability of a source is usually
that it had plausible access to eyewitness testimony.

And what is the "philosophical assumption" you
accuse me of making?

Anthony Le Donne:

Richard,

I cannot claim to have read all your critics. Certainly you know them better
than I do. I've only read a handful of essays that criticize you on this point.
At least two I can think of take you to task for building your case atop a
superficial survey of psychological studies. I simply do not know the field of
psychology well enough to know if this is the case. From my limited view, I
would not point to this as a weakness in your work. One person’s “superficial”
is another person’s “judiciously selective.” I would point, furthermore, to the
first three chapters of McIver's book on the Ebbinghausian forgetfulness curve
to fortify your case. My own criticism would take a different tact.

There are two matters, it seems, that are on the table here. (1) Did the Gospel
writers think that they were conveying eyewitness testimony? And if so, did
they think that this was important? (2) Should we place a higher value on
source material that seems to have derived from what "Mark" et al.
considered eyewitness testimony? I suspect that we will agree on the first and
disagree on the second.

One point that I've tried to make in various publications is that earlier
tradition is not necessarily better. In the same way that you say that history
is never 100% certain (yes!) we can point to episode after episode in history
wherein the first generation misunderstood the details and/or significance of
their own events. Subsequent generations rewrite the narratives of their
forebears because they benefit from a Wirkungsgeschichte that “eyewitnesses”
can’t see. We are always revising our memories and histories. Sometimes we are
able to improve our histories via revisionism. What interests me about appeals
to eyewitnesses is not that they are “reliable” or generally trustworthy
sources but in the way that the rhetoric promotes a perception of continuity with
the past. I.e. Luke’s sources don’t need to be reliable; they only need to have
distorted according to reliable patterns of memory distortion.

Also I'm quite happy to call Luke a historian. As long as we
agree that we often project anachronistic categories when we use this term.

One of the defining characteristics of the conference was a combination of silliness (by far one of the best parts of the conference was hearing how each scholar managed to work his or her favorite quotation from Life of Brian into his or her academic paper, as well as all the cursing) and extremely insightful comments on the quest for the historical Jesus. I hope the book is able to capture this combination and will report back with a review in a month or so once I've had time to digest it all.

The book features essays from William Telford, Richard Burridge, David Shepherd, David Tollerton, James Crossley, Philip Davies, Joan Taylor (also editor), Guy Stiebel, Helen Bond, George Brooke, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine, Steve Mason, Adele Reinhartz, and Katie Turner. I think I might need to see if Bloomsbury T&T Clark will let us give a copy away....

Monday, August 24, 2015

I've been reading a bit in Minjung theology of late. I'm learning that a handful of South Korean theologians took on various forms of liberation theology in the 1970s. Often called the "father" of this movement was New Testament specialist Byung-Mu Ahn.

Byung-Mu Ahn seems to place a great deal of weight on the concept of ὄχλος which is preferred in Mark over (and against?) λαός. Ochlos conveys a sense of a mixed group of outcasts as opposed to laos which connotes a group organized and unified as "God's people." There is no doubt that ochlos can be read in this way. Most dictionaries list this sense (or something like it) as the second or third definition.

So to my question: what would be the best way to translate ochlos into English?

Friday, August 21, 2015

Today James Crossley alerted me to yet another historically robust religious studies department that is closing up shop. It seems that the University of Stirling has decided to scrap it's religion department. This follows a growing trend demonstrated by Newcastle University, the University of Sheffield, etc. I know of several departments in American universities that fear the same as departments are folded into classics, philosophy, and literature departments.

The English-speaking world is also the Christianized world in enumerable ways. Whether or not we ought to use the term post-Christian can be debated. What is clear is that Christianity has played a major role in the shaping of these cultures for good and ill. Additionally it has never been more important to understand and respect our religious borders with the many and varied forms of Islam, Israel (both in concept and state), and a thousand permutations of North, East, South, and Southeast Asian religious expressions.

Yet religious literacy is valued less and less by the Christianized West.

I view this trend in higher education as a canary in a coal mine. If so, if university religious studies departments continue to close up shop, one wonders if seminaries and confessional institutions will become the last bastion for religious education in academe.

What do the readers of this blog think? Do we have enough evidence to warrant using the word trend? If so, what are the implications of this trend? How must confessional institutions change to accommodate students who cannot find places in secular graduate program(me)s?

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

I've been benefiting from Brian LePort's recent posts on John the Baptist (one of my earliest interests in Jesus studies). Brian, who is writing his dissertation on a topic related to JB, points to an interesting quote from Ernest Renan.

Friday, August 14, 2015

In a previous career I worked with children and would attend
youth-worker conferences to keep up with the Jones'. People who work with
children (especially troubled children, as I did) are something less than a
perfect lot. They tend to be devoted, but tired, rough-around-the-edges and—at
times—uncouth people. If you ever have the good fortune to enjoy camaraderie
among youth-workers you will learn to laugh to keep from crying. Sometimes you
just laugh at life because all other occupations seem to be brimming
with Scheiße. So believe me when I
say that the sound of Scheiße is
funny to most of us. FWIW, The Sound ofScheiße is my favorite Simon and
Garfunkel B-side.

One of the conferences I attended was put on by a Christian
organization that assumed, I suppose, that many of us would enjoy a concert
from Michael W. Smith. Someone else assumed, I suppose, that we would enjoy
this concert all the more if we were equipped with a thousand whoopee cushions.
We did. We cheered on that poor
pseudo-musician as loud as we could with a cacophony of pseudo-flatulence. I
think he played two songs. Then he just left the stage laughing.

That is a true story. Or at least I think it is. I am
summarizing an autobiographical experience that happened over twenty years ago.
I really don’t remember much more about that experience. I don’t know who was
sitting next to me or who went on before or after Mr. Smith. I’m not entirely
sure whether there were a thousand whoopee cushions, two-thousand, or seven
hundred. Maybe Mr. Smith played five songs and left angrily. I think I’ve got
the details right. But why should I trust myself so much that I
wouldn’t accept correction from someone else?

Do you know what would help my sense of accuracy
considerably? I would be helped a great deal if this story had made it into an
article published in The Door. Or if
Michael W. Smith had told this story to his wife and she wrote it down in a
biographical account. Or if Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman debated
about it on youtube. In short, all of these kinds of secondhand
experiences would help my memory considerably. My firsthand experience suffers
from vagueness, idiosyncratic perspective, and a sense of sadistic joy that shapes
the way I tell the story. If I had more detailed accounts from different
perspectives from secondhand parties I would be able to measure my imperfect
narrative against other imperfect narratives. I would be especially lucky if
some of the folks involved in these secondhand “memories” had contradictory
accounts so to generate the sort of heat required to keep the conversation
going.

Today I read a nice Bible Odyssey entry by Brent Landau
titled "Was Luke a Historian?" It is a very helpful article and I might use it for my
historical Jesus class. Moreover, Landau is a serious scholar who should be
taken seriously (e.g. he deserves better than to be coopted within a crude
story about . . . . Michael W. Smith). So my apologies to Dr. Landau, but I
have a problem with this following paragraph:

When we look closely at Luke’s Gospel, we find a mix of
solid historical data and imaginative reconstruction. Let’s consider Luke 13:1-5 to
investigate Luke’s knowledge of historical sources. In this little-studied
passage, Jesus discusses the meaning of two tragic recent events: Pontius
Pilate’s shocking execution of some Galileans who were offering sacrifices at
the Jerusalem temple, and the collapse of the tower of Siloam that killed
eighteen people. Neither of the events mentioned in Luke 13:1-5 are
attested in any other sources, but they are both very likely to have happened
because they are relatively routine occurrences: Pilate behaved brutally on
numerous occasions, and buildings collapse. To be aware of two quite minor
events that took place in Jerusalem in the 20s C.E., Luke must have had access
to some very reliable sources—perhaps even eyewitnesses.

On the flip side, Luke reports some events that strain his
credibility. . . .

I include here the first line of the next paragraph to show
that Landau is quite willing to call fiction fiction. He is not only interested
in defending Luke’s status as “historian” and he knows very well the
anachronism involved in projecting that category onto an ancient author. Like I
said, I like this short Bible Odyssey article! That said, Landau continues the
problematic assumption that “Luke must have had access to some very reliable
sources—perhaps even eyewitnesses.” Luke, quite clearly, used sources. I have
no problem here. I also won’t dispute the brutality of Pilate or that buildings
fall down. True and true. Luke may even have a reliable source that has conveyed
the specific events mentioned in Luke 13:1-5. But why *must* Luke have had
access to some *very reliable* sources? I think that Landau climbs out too far
on this limb. Finally, why should we imagine—as Landau seems to—that
eyewitnesses provide very reliable source material?

Again, my apologies to Dr. Landau; this is something of a
pet peeve of mine. I do want to point out that I don’t think that I’m
nit-picking. There is a philosophical assumption and methodological tendency
here that requires more conversation.

So to my challenge: firsthand testimony
is not necessarily better and sometimes much worse than secondary or tertiary works
of reflection. This is true of “quite minor events” and even more true of significant, life-changing
events.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

“When Jesus tells us about his Father, we distrust him. When he shows us his Home, we turn away, but when he confides to us that he is 'acquainted with Grief', we listen, for that also is an Acquaintance of our own.”

"[Le Donne] roots his analysis in the ancient texts and in the world of modern-day Biblical scholars. He reaches his conclusion with much careful thought and analysis. . . . "The Wife of Jesus" is an eminently sensible, thoughtful and balanced look at an important question. Its significance has to do, of course, with who Jesus was. But even more, it has to do with how Christians model themselves after him." –Chicago Tribune

"Despite a subject matter that is sure to be provocative, Le Donne manages not to take sides but also reminds readers that our ideas on Jesus’ sexuality and marital status show more about us than they do about him. A welcome resource and fresh voice." –Kirkus Reviews

"Anthony Le Donne balances strong scholarship with sensitivity as he lays out the possibilities in The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals. This is an eminently readable book for nonspecialists and specialists alike that contributes to the discussion with clarity and candor even as it challenges readers to ask what it is about ourselves that we might learn from our curiosity and concern." –Publishers Weekly

"The Wife of Jesus works superbly well as both an
introduction to historical Jesus studies and an authoritative guide through a
range of sensationalist understandings of Jesus in the mass media." –James Crossley

"A fantastic read. Le Donne's quest for the historical wife
of Jesus is as much about our contemporary phobias as it is about our past.
What Le Donne did so brilliantly for Jesus in his book Historical Jesus, he now does for Jesus' wife. In this book, he
lays out the best historical evidence for and against a married Jesus, the gay
Jesus, the celibate Jesus, and the polygamous Jesus. What is so scandalous
about this? Le Donne shows us it is all about sex."

–April D. DeConick

"Fascinating and wide-ranging… Le Donne challenges us to
revisit the assumption of Jesus’ celibacy by providing evidence on both sides
from sources as varied as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Dan Brown, the Bible itself
and a broad spectrum of scholarship." –Anne Lapidus Lerner

"A crystal-clear, compelling yet historically robust account
of what we can and can’t know about the wife of Jesus." –Mark Goodacre

In all seriousness, I am very thankful for those who have taken the time to read this book and write a bit about it.
-anthony

Monday, August 10, 2015

This post is for any potential PhD students who are interested in studying in the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St Mary's University, Twickenham. Contrary to an earlier post where I mentioned that Prof Steve Walton was at his limit for students, he will now be able to take on one or two more students this upcoming year. So if you're interested in working with Prof Walton, Prof James Crossley, or me, I'd encourage you to get in touch with one of us. We have a limited number of open spots, but there are a few.

We support both full-time and part-time PhD students, as well as residential and non-residential students. There is, actually, a development at St Mary's with regard to non-residential students. For some students, it may be possible to do what we are calling the "St Mary's Model" for non-residential PhD students. Essentially, it would involve a combination of the student coming to London at least once per year, a supervisor coming to see the student in his or her town at least once per year, and meeting together at various conferences and through Skype, etc., at least once per month. It's a combination of you coming to St Mary's and St Mary's coming to you, all of which reflects the international nature of global higher ed. If you're interested in applying for this type of non-residential PhD program, get in touch with us also. Just to be clear, there are very few positions available for this type of arrangement so we will have to be selective. If you would have interest, however, we would love to hear from you!

Friday, August 7, 2015

Representing Biblical Studies Online, I interview Chris Keith. We/Chris discuss/es various issues relating to historical Jesus studies, including social memory, form criticism, and the criteria of authenticity. The interview can be downloaded from iTunes or streamed (or downloaded) from here.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Sarah Prime, a NT PhD student in the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St Mary's University, Twickenham, recently spent a month at Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in an intensive Theological German Course. She's been willing to give a brief overview of how it went and to pass along the information for the course next year. For any PhD students or potential PhD students in NT, this sounds like a great possibility.
____________________________________

From Sarah:

Last week I returned home from Johannes Gutenberg
Universität Mainz, where I attended the first German (and) Theology
International Summer School.

The summer school ran from 6th-24th
July, and was attended by 17 students (including 7 nationalities, and
representing 10 universities). The course was organised by the Protestant
Faculty of Theology at the University of Mainz, and included daily language
classes based around German theological texts, plus three German theology
modules also covering a number of further texts. The course is aimed at current
or potential theology PhD students who are fluent in English but who need to be
able to read texts in German for research purposes (it assumes some basic
knowledge of German before arrival). Weekend excursions were also organised.

The summer school was excellent and a very valuable
experience. We could not have been given a warmer welcome by the Faculty
members and language tutors, and a number of us attended additional lectures
and classes in German during our stay. The participants were a great group to
spend time and study with. We were all able to progress our language skills
significantly during the course, and have come home feeling equipped to take
forward our reading of German texts individually. Sincere thanks especially to
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Volp and Frau Rachel Friedrich for organising the course so
expertly, and to the many staff members who gave their time so generously to
welcome us and to make the summer school such a success.

The summer school will be run again next year, and is highly
recommended. You can find the brochure for the 2016 summer school here.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The Jesus Blog's very own Anthony Le Donne has a birthday today! To celebrate the guy who introduced me to guacamole and is the only NT scholar (I know of) who's actually referenced dinosaur erotica in a published book review, let's quote from a recent review of his Jesus' Wifein the Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77.3 (2015): 558-60. Here's reviewer Lorna Shoemaker:

"Le Donne has written a work that should find an appreciative reading among those interested in understanding some of the scholarly issues surrounding the enticing question of a married Jesus. Relaxed, occasionally popular language and illustrations, and an effort to be clear yet succinct make the book inviting and accessible" (559-60).

...a weblog dedicated to historical Jesus research and New Testament studies

__

Search This Blog

_______

Le Donne, Keith, Pitre, Crossley, Jacobi, Rodríguez

James Crossley (PhD, Nottingham) is Professor of Bible, Society, and Politics at St. Mary's University, Twickenham, London. In addition to most things historical Jesus, his interests typically concern Jewish law and the Gospels, the social history of biblical scholarship, and the reception of the Bible in contemporary politics and culture. He is co-executive editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Christine Jacobi studied protestant theology and art history in Berlin and Heidelberg. She is research associate at the chair of exegesis and theology of the New Testament and apocryphal writings. She completed her dissertation at the Humboldt-University of Berlin in 2014. She is the author of Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 213), Berlin: de Gruyter 2015. Christine Jacobi is a member of the „August-Boeckh-Antikezentrum“ and the „Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften“.

Chris Keith (PhD, Edinburgh) is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity and Director of the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London.

Anthony Le Donne (PhD, Durham) is Associate Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary. He is the author/editor of seven books. He is the co-founder of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts Consultation and the co-executive editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Brant Pitre (PhD, University of Notre Dame) is Professor of Sacred Scripture at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. Among other works, he is the author of Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile (Mohr-Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2005), and Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015). He is particularly interested in the relationship between Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, and Christian origins.

Rafael Rodríguez (PhD, Sheffield) is Professor of New Testament at Johnson University. He has published a number of books and essays on social memory theory, oral tradition, the Jesus tradition, and the historical Jesus, as well as on Paul and Pauline tradition. He also serves as co-chair of the Bible in Ancient and Modern Media section of the Society of Biblical Literature.

Books by the Jesus Bloggers

To purchase, follow these links

___

Jesus and the Last Supper

_____

Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text